-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 0
/
political-stuff.txt
332 lines (224 loc) · 19 KB
/
political-stuff.txt
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
" Set text width as 72.
===
Bauhaus documentary from the BBC
(has a boring start, action starts about at:
- Walther Gropius - founder of the Bauhaus
Bauhaus founded in 1919 in Weimar - time of changes after WW1
- Gropius came from a family of architects, had gained reputation as architect before world war one, so before the war was offered directorship of applied arts school
- as architect had a view of society: lets redesign society, "change the condition he has been living in "
- wants to merge applied arts school with the fine arts school (considers beauty as a basic requirement of life, no big difference between art and crafts), rethink the place of art design in society
- Manifesto to attract students: all arts and crafts come togathe to create the pinacle of artistic achievement, a building of the future.
Principles come first!
"form follows function" as overiding ethos
William Morris was already talking of the unity of architeture and arts
- staff manages to brings lots of stars to the school: to explore fusion of arts!
- Vasily Kandinsky
- Paul Klee - spiritual paintings, paints 'like childs dream'
- Oskar Schlemer - human figure is in his field of interest, also focus on theater and dance,
- curiculum
- teacheers ban expressionism, doesn't like 'goths'
- Johannes Itten : forms the 'forecourse', the 'foundation year' (they have that in British arts schools now!)
- requires students to leave their prejudices and start from scratch.
- everyone is treated equal during this foundation course (no discrimination of women
- objective: equip students with transferable skills, so they know how to work in different areas
- 'if you want to draw a tiger you have to roar like a tiger'
- harmony between shape, color and movement
- breathign exercises to loosen students up - stresses the importance of subconciense in creative art
- was a follower of Persian cult - Mastanaan, later Gropius fires him fore being 'aloof'
- Moholy Nagy continues with the foundation course, his focus is on technology, "Art and technology - an new unity
- understand the materials
- - After the 'foundation year' come the workshops, specialization starts
Fundamental shapes - circle, triangle, square
====
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGhBTKzrJEY
Understanding Societal Collapse
- Cliodynamics: using biological/statistical approach to study patterns of history
- says there are a 100 year integrative phase followed by a 100 year disintegrative phase
- integrative periods: little internal violence, well being of general population increases
- disintegratvie period: revolutions, etc.
warning signs for this:
- declining living standards for majority (the wealthy get wealthier at the expense of everyone else, that's called the 'wealth pump')
Reason why elites start to loot the public:
/iron law of oligarchy/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_law_of_oligarchy
"...all organizations eventually come to be run by a leadership class who often function as paid administrators, executives, spokespersons or political strategists for the organization.... By controlling who has access to information, those in power can centralize their power successfully ... democratic attempts to hold leadership positions accountable are prone to fail, since with power comes the ability to reward loyalty, the ability to control information about the organization, and the ability to control what procedures the organization follows when making decisions"
"...since no sufficiently large and complex organization can function purely as a direct democracy, power within an organization will always get delegated to individuals within that group, elected or otherwise. As he put it in Political Parties, "It is organization which gives dominion of the elected over the electors. [...] Who says organization, says oligarchy.""
growth in productivity doesn't benefit the masses
life expectancy goes down (for everyone by 2017), 'deaths of despair' - from 2010
signs: in the US they import specialists on 'green cards' to pay them lower wages.
- elite overproduction (elite is the minority that concentrates power in their hand - political, )
- too much competitions over power positions is destructive
- wealth: either inherited, acquired, or you have right credentials.
Since 1970 - number of deka millionairs increased tenfold - some of them want to become 'elites'.
Now the loosers start to break the rules of the game / or turn to the lower economic strata for their support (or use imisseration as a recuriting tool)
- state weekness
- decline in efficiency of the state
Lots of people are unhappy with the sitation - legitimacy is undermined, therefore more pushback.
- declining fiscal health
because of emiseration / less taxes
infighting of elites prevents taxes on elites
- exernal influences
ofen act as triggers for events:
- like defeat in war (1905/1917 in Russia)
- food becomes expensive due to external factors (Arab Spring)
- 1848 - spread of revolution in Europe (from outside)
- US is in disintegrative period right now.
- says that's clear since Jan 6th (Trumps election reaction)
- How to prevent a 'bad cycle'?
- road to crisis is generalized - says the same developments again and again. (says they have a databasae of historic events that aids these observation)
- crisis outcome can be differnt:
- most cases is dire outcome
- some cases get out of the crisis without bloodshed (10-15%)
- what is happening now?
Says the 'wealth pump' is going strong, inflation is high.
Also the more elite overproduction (especially lawyers)
AI is going to make competition between lawyers even stronger!!!
- examples where crisis was averted (says chance of that happening is about 15%)
- progressive and new deal in USA.
- chartist period in British empire
- reform in Russia (1860ies) - delayed revolution by fifty years
- Marian reforms in Rome
Common theme: they turned off the wealth pump.
later: either the old elite is overthrown and a new one starts an 'integrative period" - or the old elites is afraid and 'mends their way', stops looting. (element of fear is important here)
- population: youth buldge is good for social upheavals. On the other hand: there was no 'wealth pump' in the late sixties, so workers ignored the students of Paris.
Queestion: what about the British decline of the seventies (declining industry) ? British unions were very ... intrasigent, that used to be somewhat of a problem (no one asks this)
(On the other hand: West Germany didn't have any of this...)
====
https://meduza.io/feature/2023/04/27/mnogie-veryat-kogda-putin-umret-voyna-zakonchitsya-ego-rezhim-ruhnet-a-sledom-nastupit-prekrasnaya-rossiya-buduschego-tak-i-budet
Erica Frantz - Authoritarian regimes compared (wrote books on the subject of authoritarian and personalist regimes: https://www.amazon.com/Books-Erica-Frantz/s?rh=n%3A283155%2Cp_27%3AErica+Frantz )
Features of a dictatorship:
- is there a ruling party?
- does it have a strong organizational basis?
- secret services
- subordinate to the big leader?
- subordinate to the government?
- secret service vs the army? (is there a structure that can limit the power of the state?)
Analyses authoritarian regimes after WW2
- change: after the nineties most of them have election!
why?
- more access to foreign aid/foreign relations are more important due to globalization
- fewer coups/putsches - for fear of loosing foreign backing
- elections (even sham elections) have a use!
- increase legitimacy of the regime
- a form of internal mobilization
- people get some kickbacks from the rules (Mubarak used to feed his people more during election years (sad))
- regime with elections stays longer in power!
- you figure out who of your own cronies is more efficient / better at getting votes (election as a system test)
- added feedback: you get an idea what the opposition is talking about
- 'there is a consensus that democracy is the best form of government' ?
Does the internet have an affect?
- in theory the opposition can easier mobilize a protest via the net
- however the regime seems to be in charge:
- can use IT as an instrument of repression (these regimes that can seem to be very stable)
- one thing: protest are less efficient in these states
- IT can increase efficiency of repression: pinpoint the leaders/easier to identify threats/etc/
- it is cheaper to yield digital repressions! (zifrovoy gulag)
Q: since the nineties: most dictatorship have a leader / are of personal nature. (before that most were ruled by a committee)
- says the effect of the cold war:
- the US supported military dictators in south America - as a counterweight to Soviet influence
after the cold war these rulers lost support - and couldn't get any foreign aid (so they were out)
- fewer party ruled states (the Soviet union - their role model - was no longer)
- nowadays they have dictatorships
- run by one ruler
- with a supporting party (that doesn't have a say),
- ruler in control of the secret service
- ruler in control of paramilitary organizations
- other factors:
- did the ruler come to power due to elections? He needs a strong party for that - says it's more likely that democratic institutes will be scrapped
- however a strong party is also a limiting factor! (has some independence and restrain the leader!)
- military dictatorships:
- if a high ranking commander made a coup he will rule by committee/council - this makes transition to democracy easier
- if it was a low ranking commander then they have a dictator (as he has to cut subordination to his former commanders!)
General observation:
- authoritarian rulers consolidate their power
- they remove everyone who could constraint their power
- then they end up absolutely alone at the top - as they got rid of all their former friends
- therefore they can't trust anyone and grow increasingly paranoid of conspiracies
- all sources of info turn into an echo chamber - yes men tell him what he wants to hear
- she says consolidation of power comes with a loss of a 'certainty about the future'
it leads to a lot of stress for the dictator (and all, for what?)
says this paranoid state is somewhat inevitable - from the course of action they need to take to stay in power...
Q: why do they loose power? Does the regime stay when the maximum leader is out?
- says since 1946 - half of the cases the regime survives it's maximum leader!
- a military Hunta isn't long lasting
- the generals make a deal with the new power and return to command the army (they have some place to go after loss of political power)
- very important deal: they won't go if they will be charged with crimes and have to face court
- party autocracies are long lasting (can find someone to replace maximum leader from within a strong party)
- personalist dictatorships are least likely to transform into democracy:
- the regime and the ruler are synonymous
- loss of leader leads to fall of regime - with a high likelihood - as it is hard to find a replacement leader that fits all interest groups!
- personalist dictators are also very unlikely to go on their own
- when getting rid of their competition they get lots of enemies and fear that they will be charged with crimes
- regime change often comes with mass revolts/civil wars - not good for transition to democracy
- how do personalist dictators loose powers?
- can happen in the first few years, when their power has not been solidified
- after twenty years ... the most frequent cause is the death of the dictator.
(a coup d'etat is not likely - never happened after the end of the cold war!)
- most common: the old elites band together and stay on the same course - when the dictator dies.
Q: mechanisms of regime change
- twenty years ago it was always the elites
- now a series of regime change through mass demonstration happened, but these are less frequent now (she says)
- opposition groups don't have the same power now (it used to be harder to mobilize people for demos, now it is easier - through social networks) (?)
Q: wars and authoritarian regimes
- only 7% of them loose powers throughout wars (started by themselves)
Says they get ousted during the first year of a war, later period it is much less likely (while the war is going on - the war helps the dictator!)
- after the war ends: if the dictator looses then that's bad for him (higher chances of being ousted)
Q: on the Russian - Ukrainian war
- Putin is very invested in the war, and may go on for a long time.
- even his successor will likely continue the war... (?) because of regime continuity.
(they new rulers are afraid to wreck their boat)
========
Other insights:
Ekaterina Shulman is sometimes telling interesting things:
https://youtu.be/rvQQVGDhI1s?t=465
- mass mobilisation was a big shock for the system. lots of indications:
- Mayor of Moscow told on his own accord that "mobilization has finished" - that's not his line of duty
- others say that they only mobilized half of the target numbers - in Moscow
- lots of adjustment after that: (the unified database, electronic systems) - these are supposed to fix shortcomings of the mobilization process
- they try to avoid a repetition of the mobilisation with lots of means:
- lots of money put into luring people to fight for hire
- mass emigration was also a shock for the system
- measuring support for the war?
- doubting many of the polls. (high rate of refusing to participate - about 90% !!!)
(other interview: says she is trusting polls where they ask 'how do other people around you respond to the situation', this question is less likely to form an answer)
- says there are lots of parameters
- age: more support with the older ones
- men support it more than women (?)
- rich ones support it more than older ones
- the bureaucracy does support it more.
- urban dwellers like it less
- main point of contention about the war:
- why does it take so long?
- need to get to some result.
These two sentiments don't contradict; people expect the bosses to solve this, as all of the power on foreign policy issues were put into their hands.
(army used to have highest level of public trust)
- are elections of 2024 an issue?
- says the system want's to remain without much change, elections are important, as elections are a
- renewal of legitimacy
- system test for the bureaucracy
- What comes after the election? Will the population challenge the results? (that's an important issue).
- says they won't stress the issue of the war during the election - they won't put a stress on the issue...
- what about Prigozhin? What will be his role?
- says that's a new item! System is very etatist, bureacracy has a big/defining role.
- very surpising move to use mobilize prisoners / with promise of granting a pardon. (says the whole system got broken!)
- says they will get rid of Prigozhin - he isn't part of the hierarchic bureacracy, says Prigozhin is a destabilizing element.
- will they succeed to get rid of him?
- yes, if the system doesn't break down.
- prigozhin is an agent of chaos.
- what about the army? The system tries to keep influence of Army in bounds.
- maybe they use Prigozhin as a tool to keep the influence of the Army in bounds? In that case he will go on for a while.
- is the governing elite support Putin in the same way? support going up or down?
- hard to measure. says there are indirect ways:
- from last years - summer, she sees two needs: (some want to gain from the 'new order of things' some want to get back to normal)
- need for normalization (from the civil society elites)
- mobilization economy: some are interested to keep it, and maintain it!
- says those who benefit from the war want to keep it up :-( (not just the secret services)
- they hope for confiscations from the previous oligarchs (to get the loot)
- mr putin needs to balance between these two (and both see him as their opportunity and as a liability)
also ge doesn't quite like the 'war economy thing' - sees that as a threat to his order / status quo....
- two factions are in conflict since last fall - when the war turned into a prolonged campaign.
- speaking about Lukashenko's health problems:
personalist systems - the autocrat sticks to power till the end (for fear of retributions)
Now if he dies in office then that increases the chances of getting the same system with a new leader
Still there can be changes in the system after the transition of power.... (see Soviet Union post 1953, Uzbekistan)
---